Thread by @GodlessNZ

(1) No one in the media understands how British royal titles work. But I do, so here's a thread on the subject.

Welcome, Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. 👶

(2) Before 1917, the lawful sons of a British prince would be called prince or princess, without limitation. This didn't happen much, because they either gained other titles during their life, or they didn't have many male-line sons from sovereign-approved marriages.

(3) In the UK, the monarchy has always been joined with the established church, which changed from the Roman Catholic to the Church of England, or Anglican church, after Henry VIII. The issue was fully settled by the Act of Settlement 1701, which barred Catholics from the throne.

(4) The other relevant law was now repealed Royal Marriages Act 1772, requiring the written consent of the sovereign before a descendant of George II may lawfully marry. This was because some of those high up in the line of succession were marrying "unsuitable" people.

(5) Historically, what are normally considered private family matters for close relative of the British monarch had constitutional significance. Much like the need to avoid foreign interference in political campaigns now, the state needed to keep out potential enemy intrigue.

(6) The Deprivation of Royal Titles Act 1917 is the other highly relevant Act. During WWI, King George V (grandfather of the present Queen) wisely made sweeping changes aimed at Anglicising the royal family's various names. Royalty everywhere was under sustained challenge.

(7) To understand why little Archie wasn't automatically a Prince at birth, you need to know what life was like before 1917. All male-line children of princes were royal, meaning that technically, the size of the royal family was enormous. By chance, most in 1917 were princesses.

(8) Almost every British princess in 1917 who was also a mother, had given birth to children of an aristocratic or foreign royal, and so the children had foreign titles. A relevant example is Princess Alice, who married the German Prince Louis, Grand Duke of Hesse.

(9) Princess Alice was the daughter of (mostly German) Queen Victoria and (completely German) Prince Albert. She and Louis had a daughter, Princess Victoria, who married another German, Prince Louis of Battenburg, in 1884. The English version of that name is Mountbatten.

(10) Louis and Victoria of Battenburg had two daughters and two sons. All born as (Battenburg, German) princes and princesses, the youngest child, Prince Louis of Battenburg, was 17 in 1917 when he became Lord Louis Mountbatten.

(11) The eldest child of Louis and Victoria of Battenburg was Princess Alice of Battenburg, who married Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark in 1903. Alice and Andrew had four daughters, and a son born in 1921, Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark.

(12) The 1917 Act gave royal descendants a choice: Either renounce your foreign title & maintain official status as a member of the British royal family, or keep your foreign title & be ceremonially cut off, & treated as a foreigner.

(13) I try not to judge the people of 102 years ago by the standards of today. This choice was a much bigger deal to them than it would be to us today.

The children of Louise, Alice & Victoria were born in England (some at Frogmore House, Windsor no less.) They chose the UK.

(14) Prince Louis of Battenburg became Lord Louis Mountbatten, & went on to earn the new title Earl Mountbatten of Burma in 1947, after his WWII service & role in shepherding the British Empire towards the independence of India. He was murdered by the IRA in 1979.

(15) The change of titles in 1917 didn't affect his sister, Alice, the Princess Andrew of Greece and Denmark, who soon became more affected by the aftermath of WWI, fleeing armed conflict in Greece with her family, including the infant Prince Phillipos, on a British navy ship.

(16) To save space I won't detail all the turmoils faced by this young mother, except that her son Philippos faced a similar postwar political crisis and ended up relinquishing his own title to become Philip Mountbatten, in early 1947. A princely title can be unhelpful at times.

(17) I was thrilled when the current Prince Louis was so named last year, after all his ancestors named Louis and Louise. It's a chance to tell their stories.

His newborn cousin's name is a chance to talk about all that the Mountbatten family has done for their country.

(18) That heritage is some of what the young Philip Mountbatten had in mind when he became engaged to the then Princess Elizabeth in July 1947. Post-war Britain was exhausted from the strain of war, still had rationed food, & was lukewarm about helping strife-torn Greece.

(19) Understandably, the royal family and the young fiance didn't want to make waves about his foreign ancestry, even though he'd fought for the country in the Royal Navy. He was created a Prince of the UK & Duke, on his wedding day, assuming his children would be Mountbattens.

(20) That was never going to happen. The widow of George V, Queen Mary, was still around, & very much in charge of the social side of the family. She'd seen first hand the struggles that led to the 1917 name changes & the new name of the House of Windsor.

(21) That other Queen Elizabeth (later the Queen Mother) also had a strong opinion on the matter. Maintaining the Britishness of the institution, with the name Windsor, was paramount. It wasn't until 1958 that the compromise of Mountbatten-Windsor was reached.

(22) It goes like this. A prince or princess does not have a surname, except perhaps their familial ducal name, eg the informal Charlotte Cambridge. In the army, it was William Wales and Harry Wales. Royal titles are handled the same way as peerage titles, eg lords and ladies.

(23) A bigger shock to the system than the name Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, was the 1973 choice of Princess Anne to decline having her husband Mark Phillips given an Earldom, like Princess Margaret's husband had been in 1960. This tradition was to give the children titles.

(24) Accordingly, Peter Phillips was not born Viscount X. As the son of a princess, he can't be a prince. But Archie can be, and in fact when his grandfather Charles succeeds to the throne, he will automatically become Prince Archie of Sussex, but will not be known by that.

(25) Harry has two young cousins who are also entitled to be called Princess Louise (2003) & Prince James (2007). Instead, they are called Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor and James, Viscount Severn. Archie could call himself the Earl of Dumbarton now. I doubt he will.

(26) Today, it seems to most people unusual for a baby in Archie's position to have no title but, it's not without precedent. What I like about it is that he's the most ceremonially "senior" royal to bear the name Mountbatten. Prince Philip, who turns 98 next month is honored.

(27) Archie only has one middle name, which is also not surprising to me, as it's a modern trend. Harrison is the Anglicized form of the Scandinavian Harrisen. Vikings settled much of the north east of England, and names ending in "son" are common in that region. Harry's son.

(28) Archie, short for Archibald, apparently has a German origin, which surprises me because it instantly sounded British to me. And like him, it's Anglo-American. I hope he rocks his dual ancestry as much as Winston Churchill did.

(29) Naturally, I hope his cousin becomes George VII in due course, happily married with a brood of his own. If the unthinkable were to happen and Archie needs to take on royal responsibilities in the future, even just as a support to the monarch like Harry, titles are there.

(30) Archie will always have the right to be called the Earl of Dumbarton/ Lord Dumbarton, using the "courtesy title" held by his father. Alternatively, Harry could use his earldom when in Scotland, like his father the Duke of Rothesay does.

(31) I don't recall whether the Dukedom of Sussex is heritable or not. Others like Gloucester and Kent are, but Edinburgh and York aren't. There is talk of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex being created Duke of Edinburgh anew after his father dies. We'll see what happens, I guess.

(32) The Dukedom of York was created in 1986 as non-heritable, before Prince Andrew had children. When Princess Beatrice was born in 1988 I harbored a wish that if there was no younger brother, the rules might be changed for her. But times have changed since then.

(33) There have been many royal Dukes of York and several have become Kings. That's why the title will revert to the Crown, so it can be used again.

Prince Andrew is now the only non-heir who has children using their princess titles. An accident of history, not a choice made.

(34) The royal family can't have foreseen the decisions that would later be made. In 1988 the entire world was transfixed by baby Beatrice, born on the auspicious date of 8/8/1988. She and her sister became the last of the extraneous princesses or princes.

(35) Nowadays in the UK it is popular not to use royal titles when a baby is born. The obvious exception is for the younger Cambridges. They will be the children and siblings of a monarch. New "Letters Patent" a form of law, were made to allow their titles from birth, bc of 1917.

(36) The 1917 law makes male line children & grandchildren of the sovereign princes and princesses (regardless of what their parents say.) Charlotte and Louis will only become eligible when the Queen dies. As adults, they will be "support crew" like Harry, Anne, Andrew & Edward.

(37) In practice, adult royals without titles still carry out public duties, informally. They don't receive taxpayer reimbursement of expenses like travel. Frankly, the private wealth held by the Queen and Prince Charles would be more than enough to keep them all in luxury.

(38) It's all very interesting, for a long time royal watcher like me. IMO it's a myth that the USA eschews titles... we see that every time some lawyer adds Esq. to his name, or a former cabinet secretary calls herself The Honorable.

(40) I've decided to relax about the blend of Anglo-Americanism represented by this little family. From the day he was born, I've wanted Harry to be happy. He definitely is... and who could ask for more than that out of life.

God bless them and their two great countries.

END